Ridiculous isolation rules for school kids

[Vargas]

So my friend's dd was playing football outside at school with a child who subsequently had a positive lateral flow test. My friend's dd now has to isolate for 10 days which now means no school until after Easter after only 1 week at school. This is even if she has a negative PCR test. Both children asymptomatic of course. Surely this is completely ridiculous??

@needadvice54321 if they never went back to school, why do they all need to isolate now? I thought that only happened for the lateral flows once they were in school (though I get the frustration and can’t understand why a negative PCR can cancel out a positive lateral flow for a home test, but not one done in a school)

If the child that tested positive on the LFT then subsequently tests negative on a PCR it is ridiculous that close contacts still have to isolate. If the positive LFT then went on to test positve on a PCR then yes, the isolation rules are reasonable.

What is U is that children testing positive on a LFT at school aren't allowed to have that positive cacelled out by a negative PCR (so lots of children are being impacted for potentially no reason) whereas if they test postive at home a subsequent negative PCR overrides that positive so the child can return to school.

Either a LFT result is correct or it isnt - its validity and the subsequent process to then follow shouldnt be determined by which building the child was stood in when taking the LFT test.

Similarly my friend's dd was playing football when 'exposed', just skills training and outside, no tackling or hugging. Chances of infection must be infinitesimal!

Yes. But reopening schools with the level of virus we currently have and with the predominant strain a more transmissible variant than last term is experimental.

I realise it's very frustrating, but starting off with an overly cautious approach and then loosening it has to be better than the government's usual policy of doing very little and then reacting to the predictable rise in cases. I assume most parents will have realised that a short period in school and then no school until after Easter as bubble burst was a possibility.

I assume most parents will have realised that a short period in school and then no school until after Easter as bubble burst was a possibility.

Unfortunately, I think the Government and media messaging around the school re-opening was so poor that many, many parents will not have realised this (or will believe that the only burst bubbles will be because of LFT 'false positives', not actual infections).

We didn't even get far through Monday before I had to explain to the whole class (having heard it from a number of children, all e.g. re-closing windows, complaining that Covid rules in school were still in place) that despite what their parents had told them, Covid was not 'over'.

@Vargas please go and do a bit of Googling. False positives for lateral flows are way under 1% whereas false negatives for PCRs are over 10%. Even with a negative PCR the positive lateral flow test means there’s a very high likelihood your son has been into contact with covid. He needs to isolate.

Unlucky perhaps.

But this is presently how things are, the more contacts you have the greater the increase of having to isolate. So a kickabout after school means 10 days isolation, it's the chance you take but everyone is aware of this by now surely?

So unlucky yes, ridiculous not so much.

No, the rules are there to protect others. Am sure their teachers or other school families don’t want it spreading any further.

@Vargas

So my friend's dd was playing football outside at school with a child who subsequently had a positive lateral flow test. My friend's dd now has to isolate for 10 days which now means no school until after Easter after only 1 week at school. This is even if she has a negative PCR test. Both children asymptomatic of course. Surely this is completely ridiculous??

Of course it is.

[quote Busygoingblah]@Vargas please go and do a bit of Googling. False positives for lateral flows are way under 1% whereas false negatives for PCRs are over 10%. Even with a negative PCR the positive lateral flow test means there’s a very high likelihood your son has been into contact with covid. He needs to isolate.[/quote]
Not my son. My friend's dd has had a negative LFT, and she is isolating due to a 'close' contact testing positive. The point of the thread, if you'd read it, is that even if my friend's dd's 'close' contact tests negative for PCR all the close contacts also still have to stay home.

But this won't be the case when the LFTs are done at home, which makes no sense.

I understand it to be that as the LFT's are being carried out in school they are classed as a testing centre so the children have to do the 10 day if in contact with someone. Also if they test positive it is the whole family who isolates. Once it goes to home testing a PCR will be needed to back up the result of the LFT so they would only need to isolate until a negative PCR is received.

[quote Eccle80]@needadvice54321 if they never went back to school, why do they all need to isolate now? I thought that only happened for the lateral flows once they were in school (though I get the frustration and can’t understand why a negative PCR can cancel out a positive lateral flow for a home test, but not one done in a school)[/quote]
Ah yes I wasn't clear on that, they were the keyworker bubble. Had their LFT the same day as the rest of their year group (day before school fully reopening)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56349116

“All LFD positives should be subject to PCR confirmation when we are asking all children to undergo such testing,” Prof Sheila Bird, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. She said it was “very likely” a positive LFD result would be false. “The concern is that the void rate with LFDs is about as high as the positive rate. About as many tests are void as test positive … It may be you’ve taken them badly or the kit has performed badly.”

Utterly ridiculous. And precisely why we didnt consent to my child having them at school. Plus if the other children have to isolate anyway, what is the point in them all wearing masks?

Palacegirl, to be really precise, when infections are at the level they are at present in the population, it is 'very likely' that a positive LFD will be false. When infections are much higher, as they have been in the recent past and may be again, it is very likely that a positive LFD result will be true.

The school LFD testing regime is in fact backwards. What would be MUCH more useful, rather than a mass testing straight out of lockdown, is mass testing regularly or on demand as cases rise.

@cantkeepawayforever

Palacegirl, to be really precise, when infections are at the level they are at present in the population, it is 'very likely' that a positive LFD will be false. When infections are much higher, as they have been in the recent past and may be again, it is very likely that a positive LFD result will be true.

Yep, I just think that the fact the kids are having to wear masks negates the requirement for testing asymptomatic kids. Especially if the tests arent reliable.

Ds's special school offered to do the continued testing themselves but we will be doing it at home for this reason.

Yep, I just think that the fact the kids are having to wear masks negates the requirement for testing asymptomatic kids. Especially if the tests arent reliable.

Neither measure is enough on its own. Returning all children to school at once will increase spread but is considered so important that every possible -cheap- measure must be tried.

@Vargas

Abraxan - my ds had Covid end of Dec, positive PCR at the time, and has been told by school that he shouldn't do any tests for 90 days due to residual virus.

Which is fine for a real case of Covid.

But in this case it's a positive lft (despite two negative pcr) that has the child down as having Covid. So this child is unnecessarily now not going to be eligible for testing for three months whilst still going to school.

[quote Busygoingblah]@Vargas please go and do a bit of Googling. False positives for lateral flows are way under 1% whereas false negatives for PCRs are over 10%. Even with a negative PCR the positive lateral flow test means there’s a very high likelihood your son has been into contact with covid. He needs to isolate.[/quote]
If this is really the case then why is almost every other use of LFTs does the PCR overrule the LFT result?

When children start doing the tests at home a positive result needs to be confirmed with a PCR. If the pcr is negative self isolation of all stop.

If a school staff member does an lft at home a positive lft result is confirmed by a pcr. Again a negative pcr result overrules the positive lft.

This is the same for pretty much every other situation where lft is used. The pcr overrules the lft.

It appears to be only in a situation where the lft is done at school that it doesn't. It appears to be purely down to an admin issue - the positive lft is recorded in such a way that means it can't be overruled, whereas any down elsewhere can be.

How does this fit in with your explanation?

@cantkeepawayforever

The school LFD testing regime is in fact backwards. What would be MUCH more useful, rather than a mass testing straight out of lockdown, is mass testing regularly or on demand as cases rise.

The school system IS mass testing regularly. It's twice weekly. First three done at school then rest fine at home. School Staff do all theirs at home from the outset.

Once the first three are done the 'false positive' issue won't be as big a deal as they will have to be confirmed with a more accurate pcr test.

It's just these first three that are the issue. Done at school means a 'testing centre' so can't be overruled. Which is clearly daft as the children are still doing the exact same thing, themselves, with the exact same kits.

It's an administration issue causing the problem.

Yep, I just think that the fact the kids are having to wear masks negates the requirement for testing asymptomatic kids. Especially if the tests arent reliable.

Both work well together. It gives a greater level of protection than just one of them on their own. Especially as both are entirely voluntary.

The school system IS mass testing regularly. It's twice weekly. First three done at school then rest fine at home.

While uptake of in-school testing has been high (50-90+%, depending on area), I think at home testing will dwindle very fast. The facility to mass test within school in response to an increase in numbers or an outbreak would be FAR more useful than a decreasing adherence to at-home testing.

Just imagine the effect on in-school infections in a situation in which a positive case arises in a school and every child in the year group (or even n the whole school, as happened in a school locally) has a LFT in school within 24 hours, so at least 50% (based on average sensitivity) of any other cases are detected and can be isolated. Alongside contact isolation, it could be really effective in snuffing out outbreaks.

Instead we test all children 3x at the lowest point of infections (at end of lockdown) and then revert to something much less effective at exactly the point when infections will start to rise....

@CovidPostingName

If either of our kids test positive at school we will get a PCR test and if that is negative we will not isolate at home. Neither of us go in to work so we will continue with daily exercise, shopping etc. Yes the kids will have to home school but like hell will I stop them going out to exercise if they have a negative pcr. I've genuinely abided by pretty much every rule so far, I even have the actual legislation bookmarked on my phone, but either a PCR matters or it doesn't, can't have it both ways.

How exactly would you get that PCR test? The only way would be to log on to the NHS booking system and claim that your child had symptoms.